In some maps that I render, I want to show the divide between a couple
of major river basins. (I have a good DEM for the area in question and
can derive the line readily.)
In light of the recent thread on topographic prominence, I wonder if
this is sufficiently interesting information at least to
The definition in the wiki is a bit contradictory, in my opinion. On the one
side, it states the thing about that the arrows should point away from the
saddle point towards the peaks, like steps or a oneway street, on the other
side it describes a ridge to connect several peaks and saddle points
A land form ridge too me isa long, narrow raised part of a high edge formed by hill/mountains and
there associated bits. A land form of a dividing range or continental
divide does not have to be narrow, The 'dividing line' marks the
separate water flow from one side to the other and should be 'l
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:26 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A land form ridge too me is a long, narrow raised part of a high edge formed
> by hill/mountains and there associated bits.
>
> A land form of a dividing range or continental divide does not have to be
> narrow,
> The 'dividi
On 05/10/18 09:45, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:26 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
A land form ridge too me is a long, narrow raised part of a high edge formed by
hill/mountains and there associated bits.
A land form of a dividing range or continental divide does not hav
> I do agree that a true ridge line may not point uphill all the time, but
> still be a single ridge.
>
> There is also no mention of that rule in the original approved proposal.
> Looking at the history of the article, that rule was added in January 2018,
> following a short, well "discussion"
That divide is, ipso facto, a ridge line, because water flows downhill
> - it is a line that's higher than the basins on either side. It runs
> from peak to saddle to peak to saddle (admittedly, the 'peaks' may be
> of but little prominence) for the length of the divide.
>
Agreed. But I'd keep nat
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under
> different keys wasn't a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce
> confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what
> people want to disti
Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than
typing in a single tag.
Does this require a proposal process? How does something become officially
deprecated?
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wr
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
> tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than
> typing in a single tag.
>
Can confirm that it's preset in iD, as I've just mapped one (a mobile phone
t
10 matches
Mail list logo
